Alex Holowczak wrote:Wikipedia's article on this suggests that J.R. Mucklow is a James R. Mucklow. I'll leave it up to you to decide whether or not to trust it!
Wikipedia is fine if you use it the way it should be used. The rule of thumb (as you might know already, so apologies if this comes across as a lecture) is to see if what is said in the article has a source (indeed, this is true of everything you read - you either check what is said with the original source, or you examine the known credibility and reliability of the author, which you mostly can't do with Wikipedia).
If there is no source, don't trust it unless you can find a source yourself. If there is a source given (usually linked to a footnote at the bottom of the article), and it is an online source or a book you have a copy of, you can go and confirm yourself whether the article is correct or not. In other words, Wikipedia articles are mostly just an aggregation of sources, but checks and verification are always needed unless (and even if) you trust the work done by the Wikipedia editor(s).
In this case, the main source is the book already referred to elsewhere in this thread, the book by Staunton, which is online here as it has been scanned and is available at Google Books (and undoubtedly elsewhere as well):
http://books.google.com/books?id=_SUCAAAAYAAJ
The book is fascinating. Well worth reading. It has also been reprinted by Hardinge Simpole as well (hope I spelt that right!).
EDIT: I take the above back. Staunton's writing is unbelievably turgid!
